President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[JazzGal]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

This doesn't answer your question but I heard on the radio yesterday that we do not eat human meat because it has a lot less nutritional value than other types of meat.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Siro]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

I care about people. I don't think they should suffer or be eaten. You care about both but are OK with eating a whole bunch of the creatures you empathize with.

I actually think it is preferable NOT to eat animals, and I would transition to grown meat if it was available. I eat them because it is culturally acceptable and I grew up doing it, although I am not comfortable with the morality of it. If I had grown up in a culture that ate people, like many existed throughout history, I'd probably be eating people too. And I'd be talking about how we probably should avoid eating people.

The question is, what makes human suffering unacceptable if suffering of other animals isn't? I think the death of a human is far more significant than the death of an animal, given our natural affinity of humans, and the social network humans have, which means the death of a human will cause the suffering of other humans connected to the deceased. I also do think human individuals carry more value given some definitions of value that I identify with (richness of human experience and knowledge for example). But even given the value argument, and even if we agree that human suffering has more value, surely if it has any value at all, then so must the suffering of other animals. I don't see how it can logically be another way.

 

[♪alt13]

I actually think it is preferable NOT to eat animals, and I would transition to grown meat if it was available. I eat them because it is culturally acceptable and I grew up doing it, although I am not comfortable with the morality of it. If I had grown up in a culture that ate people, like many existed throughout history, I'd probably be eating people too. And I'd be talking about how we probably should avoid eating people.

The question is, what makes human suffering unacceptable if suffering of other animals isn't? I think the death of a human is far more significant than the death of an animal, given our natural affinity of humans, and the social network humans have, which means the death of a human will cause the suffering of other humans connected to the deceased. I also do think human individuals carry more value given some definitions of value that I identify with (richness of human experience and knowledge for example). But even given the value argument, and even if we agree that human suffering has more value, surely if it has any value at all, then so must the suffering of other animals. I don't see how it can logically be another way.

So you are doing something that you have a moral compunction not to do.

I don't feel that way and I would be lying if I said that I did.

I think causing human suffering is morally wrong because I don't want to do it and I don't want others to do it, if it at all can be avoided. That's what morals are. Rules we place on ourselves and others so that we behave in the way we want to. I don't have a moral issue with the suffering of animals to fulfill a human need(especially not chickens) because I don't care. It's that simple.

If I did care I would behave differently and tell other people that they should too.

 

[Siro]

So you are doing something that you have a moral compunction not to do.

I don't feel that way and I would be lying if I said that I did.

I think causing human suffering is morally wrong because I don't want to do it and I don't want others to do it, if it at all can be avoided. That's what morals are. Rules we place on ourselves and others so that we behave in the way we want to. I don't have a moral issue with the suffering of animals to fulfill a human need(especially not chickens) because I don't care. It's that simple.

If I did care I would behave differently and tell other people that they should too.

So logic plays no role in morality? It's just what feels right or wrong? How can you tell others not to do something then? On what basis? Bizarre.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You're killing people one way or another. Why is it more moral to kill them quickly?

Close to half a million people have been killed in this conflict. Not sure how many by Assad, but you have to assume a decent chunk. Why was it okay to kill them with conventional weapons, but if they suffer slightly more, it's not okay? I'm trying to understand where this sudden pretend outrage is coming from.

killing is always moral!!!

murder on the other hand is always immoral!!!


as most of you know my english is TURRIBLE!

but if i could learn the difference between killing and murder so can YOU!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Go back and read Log's post. We don't tolerate the use of biological weapons because if we did everyone would be frightened all the time.

Siro talked a bit about Israel earlier. It should not be ignored that the reason middle eastern countries have biological weapons is because it is a deterrent to Israel and its nuclear weapons.

but guns frighten people!


so i think their use should be banned

 

[Gameface]

I think the reason chemical weapons are banned is because they were used extensively in WWI and people saw the results and heard the first-hand accounts and everyone pretty much said "hey, in the future, let's not fight wars like that. It's super horrible."

And I get it, flame throwers, land mines, cluster bombs, good old fashioned bullets... that's all good. But you know, I'm pretty cool with the world sticking to a standard where chemical weapons are a no-no. Just like the U.S. can use military force without going to nuclear weapons. If we did we would be condemned by pretty much everyone. This is a good thing.

 

[The Midnight]

I think the reason chemical weapons are banned is because they were used extensively in WWI and people saw the results and heard the first-hand accounts and everyone pretty much said "hey, in the future, let's not fight wars like that. It's super horrible."

And I get it, flame throwers, land mines, cluster bombs, good old fashioned bullets... that's all good. But you know, I'm pretty cool with the world sticking to a standard where chemical weapons are a no-no. Just like the U.S. can use military force without going to nuclear weapons. If we did we would be condemned by pretty much everyone. This is a good thing.

So you support Trump's action? Just curious.

 

[Rubashov]

I believe flame throwers are now illegal.

 

[Gameface]

So you support Trump's action? Just curious.

I don't support it or not support it. I'm looking on from afar just like most everyone else.

But just on basic principal, I would have liked to see a consensus with at a minimum our NATO allies and a joint strike instead of the U.S. going it alone with a strike two days after the attack.

I'm very curious as to why Assad would launch the only kind of attack that could possibly get the U.S. involved?

 

[DutchJazzer]

I believe flame throwers are now illegal.

actually you will be suprised

 

[The Midnight]

I don't support it or not support it. I'm looking on from afar just like most everyone else.

But just on basic principal, I would have liked to see a consensus with at a minimum our NATO allies and a joint strike instead of the U.S. going it alone with a strike two days after the attack.

I'm very curious as to why Assad would launch the only kind of attack that could possibly get the U.S. involved?

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

 

[Rubashov]

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

They're not massively effective against professional soldiers. When they were first used against Europeans, (I believe they were first used in North Africa by European colonialists.) they had initial success because they created panic but their effectiveness diminished as the war went on. Realistically they will likely only be used as terror weapons against civilians.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

i remember him doing it before, thereby stepping and ****ting all over obamas red line for the umpteenth time.

and the most ACCURATE ONE:

 

[♪alt13]

So logic plays no role in morality? It's just what feels right or wrong? How can you tell others not to do something then? On what basis? Bizarre.

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. What is logically good/bad?

Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses

 

[DutchJazzer]

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. Shouldn't logic lead us to perfectly rational conclusions like sterilization of the weak, the ill, and the mentally handicapped?

exactly! that's why we should distinguish killing from murder then the logic slowly but surely falls in place!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Siro]

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. What is logically good/bad?

You make it sound like basing morals on feelings is the same as making them up randomly. Morals require both emotions and logic. The objective is ultimately emotional. First, we agree on the axiom that suffering is undesirable? We agree that the aversion to suffering is emotionally based (we don't want to suffer or see others suffer)? We can build upon that principle LOGICALLY to establish moral rules that achieve our objective. I mean, obviously! How else would we have a conversation about anything?

I wanna watch the game, but my point is, if you agree that causing humans to suffer is immoral, then you are making objective statements about a subjective experience. And that experience can be applied to non-human things, as otherwise your moral is not emotional, but arbitrary.

 

[♪alt13]

You make it sound like basing morals on feelings is the same as making them up randomly. Morals require both emotions and logic. The objective is ultimately emotional. First, we agree on the axiom that suffering is undesirable? We agree that the aversion to suffering is emotionally based (we don't want to suffer or see others suffer)? We can build upon that principle LOGICALLY to establish moral rules that achieve our objective. I mean, obviously! How else would we have a conversation about anything?

I wanna watch the game, but my point is, if you agree that causing humans to suffer is immoral, then you are making objective statements about a subjective experience. And that experience can be applied to non-human things, as otherwise your moral is not emotional, but arbitrary.

We didn't agree on that. Just human suffering. On that we feel the same way. Enjoy the game.

 

[Siro]

We didn't agree on that. Just human suffering. On that we feel the same way. Enjoy the game.

What makes human suffering unique? If you got no answer besides what you said about wanting it that way, then I'll note that you're the kind of person who doesn't think moral values need to be defensible, and bow out.

 

[LogGrad98]

What makes human suffering unique? If you got no answer besides what you said about wanting it that way, then I'll note that you're the kind of person who doesn't think moral values need to be defensible, and bow out.

Sentience

Curious, where do you draw the line? Is a chicken different from say a rat? Is the suffering of feral animals, like the exploding feral cat population or selective breeding for pets that creates meant animals with small miserable lifespans different than other man-made problems like killing chickens? What about fish? Or termites? Is killing an entire colony of termites through gassing a house the same? If all suffering is equal where do you draw the line?